disruptalot
The speculation component of these new asset types has has created a high fee environment where instead of paying for bitcoin moving around, ownership of secondary assets encoded as data are being transferred.
There is currently a big controversy where one tribe says that these transactions are spam and should be banned via opt in from miners.
On the other hand, without the PoW mechanism of Bitcoin, it's impossible to have the properties that bitcoin has - global decentralised money and payment network. If you believe otherwise, make one! Very quickly no one will be willing to pay for Bitcoin, and all those "wasted electricity" will suddenly become available again.
Context: "This term is used to ridicule or demean a certain group of people based on their behaviors."
Consider using: "demanding or entitled White woman"
This example is truly a tell all for this movement. To redefine language from a position of moral superiority where they can make no mis judgment.
- Crypto is being used and abused by people and purposes that don't need it.
- Fundamental practices haven't matured yet.
Satoshi wouldn't be encouraging people to put their coins on a trusted third party like that. All fundamental crypto values say this.
Actually I can barely find any crypto posts on the hiring threads. Maybe 5%.
Meaning acquiring it fairly from the market?
As compared to fiat currencies, which can be issued and moved around with the snap of a finger. That's a net improvement.
Inflationary policies also have a very tight link with speculation in the economy. You only need to look at the past 2 years.
You can call it crank-ism if you want, but the movement behind Bitcoin's properties were born out of very real concerns about current economic models and what their effects are.
If you look at the bottom of that page [1], you'll see the events recorded by opensea. Also enable "Listing" in the filter. You'll see that there is a transfer 13 days ago and then it is listed. This is when the auction begins. Since then there was no sale, only bids. You can add the "Bids" filter as well to verify the timeline.
[1] https://opensea.io/assets/matic/0x28009881f0ffe85c90725b8b02...
Let's look at some facts.
The _first_ *Offer* made on this NFT was $280
The current top bid for this $29,000
It is not sold, so to say that its value has actually dropped is just silly.
If you imagine this in the context of a bid/offer market, this is like when market opens and a price hasn't been established because there wasn't a taker yet.
Which bank or cc company is going to jump on the opportunity of platforming an alternative to twitter that almost definitely going to include content that the institutions already voted wouldn't be platformed.
On the other hand, a fresh network of imaginary credits that perhaps might inherit some value requires no permission and can be setup by almost any entity.
If i'm understanding the methodology here, the assertion that it translates to investors is really flawed. You can't assume:
- a transaction appearing on chain constitutes a buy
- that the transaction represents 1 investor
- that 1 investor = 1 address
How and where? At worst, it's gradual and predictable. Where is the central planning of the bitcoin supply? Hyperinflation on the other hand is as a direct result of the control of a few in the matters of an economy. Not the same.
> Let's be honest: you don't have access or any control over the underlying crypto asset either. 0.00002% is really 0%.
I don't know how to response to this 0.00002% != 0% just like $20k != $0. There is nothing wrong with saving. Whether it's speculating or not is a completely different matter. Let's not pretend no other assets are speculated on especially given the degree of novelty.
You are ranting about derivatives being bad, which I agree with. I'm giving you an option that decreases the effect and increases the options for opting out of derivatives. One of the reason derivates and bubbles are so strong is precisely because of inflation and central planned economy. Meme stocks sparked primarily as a result of short time preference and centrally planned economy.
> Again, wrong. Banks are required to hold a portion of their assets and loans in hard currency. This is the fractional reserve system.
Here's your "fractional reserve system":
> As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions. [0]
> backed by [insert government here]. > custodian that is overseen by the government.
I'm sure the banks and governments are very friendly and wouldn't ever have incentives that are to the detriment of others.
[0] https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm....
When central bank/governments lose control or get greedy you end up with hyperinflation. Should I go into examples of how hyperinflation has been catastrophic?
> we don't actually know what the limit is because wallets have gotten lost and will continue to be lost.
We know the limit but we don't know how much is being circulated. Central bank money is the opposite, you know roughly how much is being circulated (if you're government is nice to you) and there is no limit.
> The impact of derivatives to effectively increase the supply
Derivates don't increase the money supply itself, they play tricks using the underlying asset. If you hold the Bitcoin asset yourself, someone playing with derivatives means very little to you. Though if you have your balance on an exchange, that's on you.
On the other hand, in the current system, you have no access to the underlying asset. You don't own 0.00001% of the central bank. In other words, everything you are using _is_ a derivative. Even something as simple as keeping your money in the bank means you are using a derivative. That being the option of the bank to hold no reserves for the money you deposited.
It fundamentally isn't as simple as inflation good, no inflation bad.
It's all fine and dandy until central banks lose control and inflation causes catastrophic issues. Not to mention that it's most definitely a bug for people that intend to save for basics like housing on smaller incomes that can't efficiently invest in assets. Inflation tends to benefit those closest to the money first, common assets second then everything else by which point a new cycle has already begun.
BTC & ETH aren't deflationary as much as they are predictable in their money supply. You could say that they elongate the time preference of investments and that isn't only a bad thing.
I think it's extremely important that mass media organisations are held accountable to what they publish, given their reach. As such I always wonder if there is a collection of revisions that major news articles have made, especially in this age that it's simply a page on a URL.
There is archive.org but has someone identified the noteworthy alterations?
We found out with previous Bitcoin forks, how influential companies and miners are. 21M is non negotiable, and which stakeholder would want to dilute themselves?